Rebecca Smith
MP for South West Devon · Conservative · United Kingdom
“His Majesty’s Opposition, the higher education sector and, most importantly, students right across the country need answers to those important questions.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Against this uncertain backdrop, universities are being forced to close courses and sell buildings to cut costs and make efficiencies. The difficulties facing universities are explained well in the Policy Exchange report, “Tarnished Towers”.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is all part of our new deal for young people. I reiterate His Majesty’s Opposition’s firm belief in the strength and value of the UK’s higher education sector; it is indeed a huge strategic asset. However, we must be honest and recognise that it will face huge challenges over the next decade.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am going to make some progress. I do not want to burst the bubble of the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), but Plymouth has also had dentistry offered as a subject.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They teach young people to think critically and outside the box, skills that I believe will be essential in a Britain where communities are more divided than ever and the spectre of the AI revolution looms over us all. It is beyond clear that universities will play a central role in Britain for decades to come.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, and to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for tabling this important debate and all Members for their contributions this morning.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
1,245 held · 653 searchable for Rebecca Smith. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“I believe that the Mayor of London’s transport strategy is already considered within the wording of the Bill. I did not draft the Bill; it is not my Bill. I am just highlighting those areas. Ultimately, many of those areas may well be further down the road towards becoming mayoral authorities. I am talking about the areas that are not even on that path. We know that certain counties outside London are doing so, but ultimately the point the hon. Gentleman is making is a valid one. However, I do not believe that it means we should not have the amendment that we are putting forward, because it would give strategic authorities the ability to communicate with the Mayor of London and with GBR. That is an additional layer of engagement and ensuring that those voices are heard.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Bear with me one second. Ensuring that manufacturing process in the long term will be important. I will give way to the hon. Member, who is much more learned on this matter than me.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If Great British Railways will be so wonderful, would it not be great if the British people can see what it actually achieves and hold it to account? Marking one’s own homework is never good, and being able to hold GBR to account in all its forms will be essential.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Committee heard from some representatives of the private sector. Lord Hendy has also highlighted that Hitachi—I believe it was—has made multi-million-pound investments that the Government were very happy to accept. It may well be that that is backed up by Government, but that was welcomed by the Prime Minister, so to say that we do not want private investment seems a bit churlish—ultimately, it has been accepted by the Government in its entirety. The new clauses in this group are pushing the accountability piece: the reporting back, to make sure that the Great British public has the opportunity to see what Great British Railways is delivering and whether it is holding itself to account in the right way. I do not understand why the Government do not seem to think that the new clauses are a good idea.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On those local business units, how large an area are they likely to be structured on? That has not been in the debate to this point, and may reassure me. I appreciate that that may be a detail that is coming later, but some indication of how many counties might be included within each business unit would help.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“T4. Charmaine from Cox and Co Salon in Plymstock in my constituency has been in contact because Government business decisions are making it incredibly difficult for her business to stay afloat. The National Hair and Beauty Federation has highlighted the fact that business rates remain the largest fixed cost facing this incredibly important industry. Will the Minister commit to extending business rate relief beyond pubs to all high street businesses, especially those in the health and beauty sector?”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do not want to stop my hon. Friend’s flow, as I believe he is probably coming to the end of his remarks. On listening to his eloquent speech, it strikes me that these amendments point directly to the fact that if Parliament had more of a role under the Bill, we would not even get to such places. Ultimately, if there is scrutiny throughout the process and an ability for Parliament, once GBR exists, to hold the Secretary of State and GBR to account, we should avoid the need for a civil proceeding, because a lot of the issues could be nipped in the bud before getting to that stage.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I would argue that my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham has tabled a key amendment, which relates to something that came up in the scrutiny of the Bill in the Transport Committee; indeed, I asked a question of the noble Lord Hendy about it when I quizzed him on how we as MPs are supposed to hold the Government to account for the delivery of the long-term rail strategy. I appreciate that it is long term, but we have to get from the short term to the long term, and if nothing is set out in the Bill about what delivery is supposed to look like on the route to the long-term delivery, we effectively cannot do our job. The Minister in the other place rightly said, “It’s going to be an amazing railway system. It’s going to be perfect,” but he could not answer me on how we hold people to account on getting from A to B.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend’s argument highlights the challenge that a lot of the independent retailers, open access users and, potentially, freight users will face if the Bill remains as drafted. Ultimately, they are the people outside the walls of the castle who will struggle to understand who is making what decision and which decision is final. It is a bit like a child going to one parent, getting an answer they do not like, and going to the other parent to get a different answer. Should there be more clarity in the Bill specifically for that reason?”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Such scrutiny is in the interest of all the stakeholders—the public, the staff who work for all the railway companies that are to be brought into Great British Railways, and all the other stakeholders that provide services through open access or freight. Whether it is the coffee shop in a station or the trolley service on the train, all these people need this information, and I am disappointed that we cannot provide that scrutiny at this stage in the debate. I would welcome the opportunity to see the draft as soon as it is out, but it is disappointing that has not come in time for debate in Committee. No doubt similar comments will be made on Report and, hopefully, in the other place.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Ultimately, Great British Railways is entirely premised on that licence: it does not operate without it, cannot deliver its functions without it, and will not create this supposedly amazing utopia of perfection for passengers and infrastructure deliverers alike without it. Debating the clause without that context feels like a completely wasted opportunity—indeed, I fear that this debate will be incredibly short. This is something that I have seen happen with other Bills. The Minister will say that this is what the Opposition would also have done, but we were not in the position to set up Great British Railways, which—next to the NHS—will be the biggest Government-funded and backed body in this country. Without the scrutiny of hon. Members this morning, we cannot do our job properly.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I do not think I said this earlier, because I was merely intervening, but it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I appreciate what the Minister just set out in correcting the record from last week, because a lot of what I was going to say had to do with the lack of the licence. In spite of what he said, I still think that it is a problem for us to be debating clause 11, and later schedule 1, without that detail in front of us. It is very generous of him to say that we can be part of the consultation process, but given that we are encumbered with being here for 10 hours a week, I am not quite sure when would be able to do that. With all due respect, I still want to put on record how disappointing it is that we do not yet have the licence.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister spoke earlier about the consultation. It is worth restating that it is not the final draft but a consultation on the draft that is going to happen. We will have sight of the final version of the licence way down the road of the Bill’s progress, and ultimately the final licence may not be ready before scrutiny of the Bill is complete. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that that is something that we need to address? Hopefully the Minister will reassure us.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments about how staff are being brought across—obviously some franchises have been brought into Government control already—and about the Department’s plans going forward, because time and again, we see pay going up for public sector workers without that necessarily reflecting any changes in performance.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, it is really important that we have this conversation about what the Bill will actually mean. As my hon. Friend pointed out, value for money is mentioned only once in the Bill. We are, in effect, writing a blank check for GBR to spend whatever it wants on bringing all these staff into its employment. We were told very clearly when the Committee began that this is not a civil service; it is the public sector, so there is a difference there, but it is effectively a private body as well.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is an honour to speak with you in the Chair, Mr Western. I will touch on three of the new clauses—one at greater length than the others—to follow up on the words of my hon. Friend. For me, new clause 39 highlights something that is clearly missing from the Bill: what actually happens when these currently franchised, privately run rail services come into public ownership across the board. Over many years, unions have fought hard for terms and conditions for staff and railway companies, but these are not uniform across the board. There is a huge differential in the terms and conditions that staff are subject to. I pay huge tribute to the men and women who work on the railway; they are a brilliant group of people. I am obviously on a train every week, coming up and down from my constituency.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham has been alluding to the point about the costs we currently see in the system, particularly around infrastructure. That has certainly come up in the Transport Committee, in terms of how much it costs to build a bridge or a new station and the lack of competition and challenge. The new clause would create an opportunity to ensure that we pay as little as possible for the best outcomes. We have had lots of evidence in the past few months to show that other parts of the world can produce the station infrastructure that we need for a lot less than we are paying for it. I believe that is down to how the system currently works, and new clause 44 would force us to look at how it could work under GBR.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister has reassured me that that will be done through business units and so on, but given that we do not know the scale of those business units or which regions and communities they represent, it is important that we know how that taxpayer money is to be used for funding across the country. There has been a huge amount of storm damage in the south-west this weekend. Where will the funding come from under the new GBR? The south-west is not a mayoral strategic authority. Will we get our fair share of funding through the set-up for GBR? New clause 40 sets out the aspiration to move away from taxpayer funding and would surely create a more equitable system for the future. Finally, new clause 44 would introduce a savings target. My hon.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Turning to new clause 40—this might be something of a segue, but I am going take the opportunity to put it on the record anyway—there is something about the aspiration to move from heavy taxpayer-funded reliance that speaks to the devolution conversation that we have been having. We have had multiple conversations, and I am sure we will have more, but ultimately GBR is being set up to give more powers to certain local authorities and local areas if they wish it, which is great—we want those communities to be able to control more of what happens. However, as we have been discussing, we are effectively developing a two-tier system, whereby anyone who is not in a mayoral authority will effectively be paying into the railway company and GBR, but not necessarily getting the levers to effect change locally.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have one more point, which came up right at the end of the Select Committee hearing—I managed a question to the Minister, Lord Hendy, but have not seen a response. There is a huge amount of land and value that belongs to these railway stations, currently run by private companies, in some cases, including for things such as parking. What happens with all that income and all the opportunities for Great British Railways to potentially make some money? How will we know about that money and where it is coming from? New clause 39 seeks to bring that information to the fore and ensure that it is transparent and in the public domain.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Subsection (7) of new clause 39 provides that we should be showing where revenue comes from. That is absolutely justifiable. The private companies that will continue to operate in the railway system will have all that information available to their shareholders—to the people they are reporting to. If Great British Railways does not show that information, there is, again, no opportunity for scrutiny. If commercial retail income is flopping because GBR is not doing a very good job, we have no way to hold it to account for that. I do not see why it should be frightened to share that revenue information. It should instead see this as an opportunity to show good practice and how things could potentially progress under GBR.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As a member of the public, I want to be sure that those public sector staff are not receiving undue recompense for what they are doing, which would not be in accordance with other public sector bodies. Private companies have been expected to give their staff a huge amount of benefits—quite rightly; that is their choice as private companies. If the staff become public sector, things like free rail travel need to be on the table. We must at least acknowledge those issues and make a decision to continue them, rather than assuming it is a given, which is down to unions to negotiate. There is no conversation in the Bill about that TUPE-ing across of staff members. Value for money is really important. We do not want inequality being built into our public sector workforces simply because we are renationalising something.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is a very long time ago. Under privatisation, the unions have done a very good job. In my constituency in the south-west, there are no seven-day contracts, for example. If I want to get a train up from my constituency on a Sunday, those trains are cancelled quite regularly, because the service relies on the good will of the staff to do overtime to make the train even come up to London. Whatever we do, we need to look carefully at the terms and conditions that will be brought forward into this new public body. Up to this point, it has been down to each individual company to negotiate. That has been done with highly professional and competent union representatives, but we are not on a level playing field at the moment.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“How on earth are we supposed to hold the Government to account for delivering that, let alone ensuring parity and equality across the country, and making sure that funding is going into the right places, where it is most needed?”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am thinking through the schedule. Forgive me if I am wrong, but ultimately, it is GBR’s business plan. Effectively though, there are going to be wheels within wheels, in terms of each of the business sectors, the different mayoralties, and the operators that are doing different things in different countries. To me, it feels overly simplistic: we have got one plan, which is the plan for the funding of the entirety of GBR, but if there are no KPIs at all, how are we supposed to even compare parts of the country against each other? Surely there will be different funding streams and business cases for different things. To me, it just feels like one overarching plan.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I want to briefly speak to the proposed new subsection added by amendment 23, which would offer anybody given conditions by GBR the opportunity to appeal that decision to the Office of Rail and Road. The issue of accountability and the unequal playing field faced by those on the outside compared with those on the inside came up in the Transport Committee’s evidence sessions and last week. Having heard a lot of that evidence, the amendment appeals to what I think is the right way to do things. We must ensure that organisations engaging with the railway, or offering services to the railway—even if they are being paid separately for them—have the opportunity to appeal a decision that affects or impacts them. I feel that not having such an opportunity is particularly onerous.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“At the weekend, Storm Ingrid caused the sea wall at Dawlish to collapse in two new places, and we wait to see the damage caused by Storm Chandra today. Both storms are once again exposing the vulnerability of the main rail line to Devon and Cornwall, which is vital for the local economy. Given the reported lack of a Treasury emergency reserve, can the Chancellor guarantee contingency funding for any urgent and unplanned resilience work required and not covered by a fiscal event?”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am slightly cautious and sceptical, given my past role as a governor in a primary school in a more urban setting that had a more traditional curriculum; none the less, it is important that we have been able to debate this topic this afternoon. Is it the Government’s view that a one-size-fits-all approach is right, or is it right to have differences in the school system? The new Labour Government want to halt the progress of free schools, which could provide this alternative form of education within the state system, and they are not keen on multi-academy trusts, which perhaps also offer a different way of teaching. I am interested to know the Minister’s thoughts on that one-size-fits-all approach, or whether there should be space in our state education system for different ways of teaching and learning.”
House of Commons26 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We do not want a situation where a few schools deliver an amazing, creative environment for children who might struggle in more academic mainstream schools, but on the other side, negatively impact SEND provision more broadly across the community. I absolutely recognise the value of play, but a school could potentially become known as being particularly good for SEND children and end up with a higher-than-average cohort of children who meet those criteria. Ultimately, I am completely compelled by what I have heard this afternoon. I hear all the arguments and I have seen the value of play for myself.”
House of Commons26 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I understand the arguments for play, but we have to ensure that any increased emphasis on it does not hinder the teaching of a rigorous, knowledge-based curriculum, because, at the end of the day, we are preparing children to go through other key stages. However, as a non-expert in the room, I will say that I absolutely see both sides of the coin. One thing that will come up in the course of this debate—I think it was highlighted by the Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes)—is that often the schools that offer play are particularly beneficial for children with additional needs or special educational needs. One question I have for the Minister is: how do we ensure that, when this approach is used in local primary schools, we are creating a fair playing field?”
House of Commons26 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Sparkwell All Saints primary is a very small rural school, and such schools can deliver this programme, which larger inner-city schools might struggle with. I put on record how impressed I was with what Sparkwell All Saints provided. The school starts with the Montessori-style nursery and continues that through into key stage 1. If I had children and I lived in the village, I would be queueing at the door to get my kids into the school, which is delightful to visit. Mr Cole, the headteacher, is inspirational, and the value of the play-based, hands-on teaching method that nurtures children from my constituency is clear to see.”
House of Commons26 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have to say that if not for Cari, I probably would not be here this afternoon. She is a key stage 1 teacher who uses a play-based approach in her classroom. She told me that this petition “is not asking for KS1 to reduce essential academic content”. Instead, it aims to ensure that core knowledge can be taught using “purposeful learning through play; structured enabling environments; and skilled adult interaction.” Cari is one of the signatories to the petition who does not agree with the Government response to it, and perhaps she will not agree either with the official Opposition response, but I want to express her views this afternoon. I am certainly very grateful to her for sharing her expertise and experience. I draw attention to one school in my constituency, which I had the privilege of visiting towards the end of last year.”
House of Commons26 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mrs Barker, and I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for presenting this petition on behalf of the petitioners. Hopefully, I will not take four minutes to speak, because I am no expert on this topic. I am here today because 389 of my constituents signed the petition, which means that South West Devon had the fifth-highest response rate in the country. As a Member of Parliament, I always feel that when we are sent that little table telling us how many of our constituents have signed a petition, it is great, where it is possible to do so, to come and represent their views. I have also heard from two or three parents directly about this topic. In addition, teachers have contacted me, including Cari Dyson.”
House of Commons26 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does the Secretary of State agree that rather than Back Bench-pleasing schemes tinkering around the edges of the youth unemployment crisis, what we need is a strong economy with confident businesses actively seeking to employ the hundreds of thousands of talented yet unemployed young people across the country?”
House of Commons26 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It strikes me as odd that rather than extolling the virtues of the Government’s flagship youth guarantee, we have had a number of Labour MPs asking about youth hubs. Is that because it is easier to defend the setting up of some youth hubs than feeding back on the roll-out of the youth guarantee? Since the Labour Government came into power, businesses have stopped hiring young people in roles where they could be paying someone more experienced the same amount of money. That has meant that youth employment has gone up since July 2024, with the most recent figures showing a 103,000 increase in unemployed young people.”
House of Commons26 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I completely appreciate what the Minister is saying. However, I suppose that the outstanding question is this: how will the general public come to understand what GBR is going to mean for them if it is not going to be established for 12 months and if there is not a fixed timetable for reporting back to MPs on how it is going? There has already been a fanfare about delivery; I am sure that there is going to be another fanfare from the Government once the Bill is passed. However, if we are going to take passengers on this journey, so to speak, we must ensure that there is an opportunity for us, as Members of Parliament, to be able to report back, even if it on an issue relating to our own constituency. I think the new clause tabled by my hon.”
House of Commons22 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I appreciate the heart behind the hon. Gentleman’s proposal, but can he explain a bit more about why we need a national railcard? There are already all sorts of other railcards, as he rightly points out. There is one for the south-east, and I know there is one in Devon and Cornwall, but they are for specific sets of people doing specific types of journey. If there was a national railcard, would it not incentivise everybody to possess one, so that nobody ever paid a full rail fare?”
House of Commons22 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister for the clarity on the code of practice, which has also been echoed in some written answers I recently received from him. While we are talking about open access, what thoughts have the Minister and the Department given to working with independent retailers who have probably spent billions of pounds developing an app and a website that do a particularly good job? What work will they do collaboratively with those organisations, rather than viewing themselves as competition?”
House of Commons22 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The point I want to come back to is about value for money for the taxpayer. I want some reassurance that GBR will not go right back to the beginning of the journey of creating a ticketing app and website, which would effectively cost the general public an inordinate amount of money, when we already have a lot of platforms that could be brought in-house rather than having to be separate businesses. On the value for money point, call me a cynic, but my understanding of computer programming is that it is not very cheap. I assume that that is something that GBR will have to factor in. Perhaps using some of the existing independent retailers might be a better value for money option.”
House of Commons22 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does my hon. Friend agree that paragraph (e) and some of the other provisions will support what I am particularly keen to see: the growth of the entire railway, not just the areas that happen to have a mayor or are part of Scotland or Wales?”
House of Commons22 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is really important if the Government want to see economic growth in the south-west, which they do, because they are investing enormous amounts of money in defence. But if we do not build in at this early stage the ability to see growth for regions that do not have a mayor, and are not likely to have a mayor for some considerable time, I remain unconvinced that the Bill is reassuring enough to say, “Don’t worry, these far-flung parts of the country will get a look-in.””
House of Commons22 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will briefly make a few comments about each of the new clauses, though obviously I have already intervened on my hon. Friend. I support wholeheartedly what we have proposed in new clause 1, which is no surprise given that I am sitting next to my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. I want to pick up on what he said about the restoring your railway fund as an additional way of explaining why the lack of regional devolution, apart from mayors, is going to be so important for a lot of our constituents. I represent a constituency in the south-west that had some really great promises made under the restoring your railway fund, and was going to be able to make progress on a new station and railway line between Tavistock and Plymouth.”
House of Commons22 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Knowing the hon. Member’s enthusiasm for all forms of transport as I do, I would like to build on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham made about amendment 214 in respect of district councils, and ask whether it would have been better to use the term “a transport authority”, which may well have linked it more clearly to the Bus Services Act 2025. That new bus legislation allows council-led transport authorities to control bus services. Perhaps that would have been good, safe ground to be on, which might well have enabled us to be more supportive.”
House of Commons22 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They keep being brought in front of the Select Committee as the solution to all of our transport problems, but unless other areas in the country get a mayor, they will not see the benefits of any of it. I know that that is the Government’s intention, but I genuinely do not think that it will be the reality for a number of years.”
House of Commons22 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have debated changing language today and I have already talked about the potential for referring to “local transport authorities”. I am intrigued about why subsection (5)(c) is the end of the line. It refers to a “Passenger Transport Executive for an integrated transport area.” Why does this not go further? We know that the Government have huge intentions for devolution and local government re-organisation but, despite their best intentions, that might not come to pass in the way they think. How can the Bill be changed to reflect areas of the country that do not have a mayor or any of the bodies included in subsection (5)? How will the Government ensure that the whole country benefits from GBR, not just those areas that have great, charismatic mayors—of all colours?”
House of Commons22 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I know that that is not the intention, but I do not think that the Bill as drafted clearly describes that. I referred earlier to the general premise of devolution and the Minister tried to reassure me about devolution outside strategic mayoral authorities, but I still do not think that the Bill is clear enough about what is going to happen. Given that the Bill sets up a railway system that the Government hope will last forever, it is not clear how other parts of the country will come into play. The Transport Committee has debated that and heard lots of evidence as well. The question remains. While I appreciate the Minister’s reassurances, they do not go far enough to help me and many others across the country to understand what is in the Bill for them regarding local control and power.”
House of Commons22 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will touch briefly on two points that are not necessarily related, but overlap. First, let me build on what my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham said about the word “may” in clause 5(1). Anyone who was at the oral evidence session earlier this week would have heard the Manchester and west midlands mayors talking about wanting a meaningful relationship. They could not pinpoint exactly what meaningful would look like, but the gist was a desire to make sure that the relationship has some “oomph” or a decent foundation to it. I am therefore concerned about the use of the word “may”. Will the Minister define what “may” means and when “may” might happen? Ultimately, that is potentially the biggest get-out clause for not having to act.”
House of Commons22 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does it have to be linked to a level of devolution, or will it exist anyway, meaning that local councils, such as the one in my area, would still refer to them?”
House of Commons22 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister’s point speaks directly to something else I am concerned about: how the business units relate to local government areas. His explanation still uses language that makes it sound like the authorities will be much smaller, granulated local authorities rather than larger strategic ones. Can the Minister help me to understand how the business unit will work in an area that does not have a mayoralty—that top level of devolution—in place? I do not want to be parochial, but two railway companies currently provide services in the south-west, and there are three in the far south-west, if we look at some of the other routes down from London to there. If there is a business unit, what is it controlling? Is it controlling the entire south-west? Is it controlling the railway company providing that service?”
House of Commons22 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister for the further detail that he has provided. A lot of these regions feed into London and the big cities. If local councils are holding their local business units to account, how does that connect with services going from those regions to big cities such as London or Birmingham?”
House of Commons22 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗